Subject: [Dots] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 15:00:33 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-data-channel/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As in the signal-channel document, there are a couple of nits in the text about
using FQDNs as mitigation targets:

Section 10

   When FQDNs are used as targets, the DOTS server MUST rely upon DNS
   privacy enabling protocols (e.g., DNS over TLS [RFC7858], DoH
   [RFC8484]) to prevent eavesdroppers from possibly identifying the
   target resources protected by the DDoS mitigation service and means
   to ensure the target FQDN resolution is authentic (e.g., DNSSEC
   [RFC4034]).

nits: "DNS over TLS or DoH" ("or" instead of comma, but keep the
references as-is); comma before "and means to ensure", since the DOTS
server has to do both of those (as opposed to the DOTS server using DoT/DoH
which provides both eavesdropping protection and data authenticity, which
is what the current text says).